Ridiculous headline. This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter. They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

Jesus, I don't understand what all of the fuss is about. My daughter had been drinking straight from the liquor bottle from the beginning, and since we only buy classy shiat in glass bottles, we only have to worry about the hourly bottle breakage and fights that happen after about 2 PM.

nexxus:Ridiculous headline. This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter. They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

Dimensio:nexxus: Ridiculous headline. This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter. They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

nexxus:Ridiculous headline. This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter. They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA

Cool! A "Caveat Emptor" Libertarian! That approach is a totally winner in China, by the way. Sorry about your dog. And everything else.

nexxus:We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter. They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

Yes, because the average consumer has access to the tools to test to see if their water bottle is leaking a substance that might be harmful for them, or to check and verify every factory for every component in their new phone isn't dumping toxic waste into the local river. And also has the money and time to take the vendor to court, hire expert witnesses, etc. All to win nothing since they can't prove financial harm beyond the price tag of the item.

nexxus:Ridiculous headline. This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter. They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

Dimensio:nexxus: Ridiculous headline. This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter. They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

Angela Lansbury's Merkin:Yes, because the average consumer has access to the tools to test to see if their water bottle is leaking a substance that might be harmful for them, or to check and verify every factory for every component in their new phone isn't dumping toxic waste into the local river. And also has the money and time to take the vendor to court, hire expert witnesses, etc. All to win nothing since they can't prove financial harm beyond the price tag of the item.

I understand what you're saying, and the way things are right now, you're right.

But if it weren't for government agencies involving themselves in this process, the entire 'system' would have evolved differently - would be different. Surely you can see and accept that, even if we don't necessarily agree on *how* it would be different.

nexxus:This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Your argument is silly. Just because Big Business has corrupted the government, doesn't mean that the government is bad. It's important to have some sort of "system", we just need to start executing CEOs that set out to manipulate our government into lying to us.

It's like Tea Party members being elected because they hate big government. They get to Washington DC and then break the government even more, and then go back home and get re-elected because big government doesn't work. It's not 'governments' fault, it's just the morons you keep electing. "Big business" spends a ton of time, effort and money making government look stupid so morons like you can rail against 'big government', instead of being mad at the companies that are actually hurting you.

Angela Lansbury's Merkin:nexxus: We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter. They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

Yes, because the average consumer has access to the tools to test to see if their water bottle is leaking a substance that might be harmful for them, or to check and verify every factory for every component in their new phone isn't dumping toxic waste into the local river. And also has the money and time to take the vendor to court, hire expert witnesses, etc. All to win nothing since they can't prove financial harm beyond the price tag of the item.

The non-stupid consumer would rely on private third party certification. Hey, but wouldn't the company just collude with the certifying agency to rig the tests? That might happen, but then people would stop trusting that particular certifying agency and they would either clean up their act or go out of business. That's after they've been sued. There are plenty of ambulance chasers out there willing to work on contingency. When it happens with the EPA, as in this case, you can't fire the EPA. I think you can sue them, but it's not nearly as easy to sue the government with all its various immunities.

nexxus:Louisiana_Sitar_Club: You give the average person waaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy too much credit.

That's possible, but if people continued to do stupid things over long periods of time (like using toxic products) they wouldn't live as long as those who didn't, and so.. natural selection.

There's nothing "natural" about dying from (e.g.) a brain tumor caused by radiation leaking from an unshielded device meant to be held to the head for extended periods of time.

So it's just "selection".

// also, it's not just that these companies might MALICIOUSLY poison us, it's that they might do so ACCIDENTALLY// granted, current law isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight better than "caveat emptor (because you have a scanning electron microscope and full chem lab in your house, right? And, because there's no standards in manufacturing, you've independently tested and calibrated all that equipment in advance of your rigorous testing regimen?)"

jigger:The non-stupid consumer would rely on private third party certification. Hey, but wouldn't the company just collude with the certifying agency to rig the tests? That might happen, but then people would stop trusting that particular certifying agency and they would either clean up their act or go out of business. That's after they've been sued. There are plenty of ambulance chasers out there willing to work on contingency. When it happens with the EPA, as in this case, you can't fire the EPA. I think you can sue them, but it's not nearly as easy to sue the government with all its various immunities.

The problem is not what's in the plastic. It's using the plastic to begin with. Beer in glass bottles, soda in glass bottles (I know you can't find it anymore), milk in glass bottles, ketchup, mustard, pickles, vinegar - everything came in glass bottles and jars.

We were told that plastic was safer because it didn't break and cut your small children to ribbons (a fate worst than losing an eye to a BB gun or running with scissors); it was more convenient because you didn't have to wash and return it, it was lighter so it was easier to carry and cheaper to ship - the benefits of plastic were manifest and abundant and were promoted by industry and government alike.

Now we have chronic oil shortages (the source of plastics) and are warned that we will run out and need to find alternative energy sources. We are also told that plastic is not going to save us - it's going to kill us.

nexxus:Ridiculous headline. This kind of thing happens precisely _because_ we don't have a free market.

Without the EPA and others sanctioning bad behavior (e.g. the use of toxic shiat, inadequate testing, manipulated standards), a toxic/nasty chemical in a product would land the manufacturer in court the second the it hit the market (or the second someone could argue they were damaged) and eventually there'd be no more harmful chemicals in products.

We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter. They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

/DNRTFA

I'm going to market botulism tester home kits and then when those are proven to test precisely nothing, I'll reappear under a different pseudonym and market basically the same thing. Repeated forever! I'll be rich!

But no, probably nobody will have money to buy them because they're too busy learning the bio-chemistry involved in how to test for a thousand different products and then getting science degrees necessary to read the results.

nexxus:Angela Lansbury's Merkin: Yes, because the average consumer has access to the tools to test to see if their water bottle is leaking a substance that might be harmful for them, or to check and verify every factory for every component in their new phone isn't dumping toxic waste into the local river. And also has the money and time to take the vendor to court, hire expert witnesses, etc. All to win nothing since they can't prove financial harm beyond the price tag of the item.

I understand what you're saying, and the way things are right now, you're right.

But if it weren't for government agencies involving themselves in this process, the entire 'system' would have evolved differently - would be different. Surely you can see and accept that, even if we don't necessarily agree on *how* it would be different.

jigger:Angela Lansbury's Merkin: nexxus: We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter. They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

Yes, because the average consumer has access to the tools to test to see if their water bottle is leaking a substance that might be harmful for them, or to check and verify every factory for every component in their new phone isn't dumping toxic waste into the local river. And also has the money and time to take the vendor to court, hire expert witnesses, etc. All to win nothing since they can't prove financial harm beyond the price tag of the item.

The non-stupid consumer would rely on private third party certification. Hey, but wouldn't the company just collude with the certifying agency to rig the tests? That might happen, but then people would stop trusting that particular certifying agency and they would either clean up their act or go out of business. That's after they've been sued. There are plenty of ambulance chasers out there willing to work on contingency. When it happens with the EPA, as in this case, you can't fire the EPA. I think you can sue them, but it's not nearly as easy to sue the government with all its various immunities.

What you'd get is the certifying agency crippling or buying out other certifying agencies and/or creating shells to hide the fact.

Or you'd get what you basically have now, with weakened regulatory agencies -- the producers performing certification duties under the radar, and obscuring the truth.

Libertarians believe that information is most free in their idealized, libertarian society, but actually the opposite is true.

I wonder why nobody ever talks about the acetaldehyde that leaches out of plastic bottles. That's the only chemical they test for in a PET bottle plant. It's a pain in the ass, too, because it's a biatch to fine-tune your injection process to compensate for it.

nexxus:But if it weren't for government agencies involving themselves in this process, the entire 'system' would have evolved differently - would be different. Surely you can see and accept that, even if we don't necessarily agree on *how* it would be different.

Different doesn't mean better. There are plenty of countries with minimal government regulation or intervention (from an actual implementation and enforcement standpoint), like Indonesia or China. They aren't any safer or environmentally cleaner.

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste:jigger: Angela Lansbury's Merkin: nexxus: We'd also have consumers that were a lot smarter. They'd do their own research on things rather than blindly trust that because their overseers approved it, it must be okay.

Yes, because the average consumer has access to the tools to test to see if their water bottle is leaking a substance that might be harmful for them, or to check and verify every factory for every component in their new phone isn't dumping toxic waste into the local river. And also has the money and time to take the vendor to court, hire expert witnesses, etc. All to win nothing since they can't prove financial harm beyond the price tag of the item.

The non-stupid consumer would rely on private third party certification. Hey, but wouldn't the company just collude with the certifying agency to rig the tests? That might happen, but then people would stop trusting that particular certifying agency and they would either clean up their act or go out of business. That's after they've been sued. There are plenty of ambulance chasers out there willing to work on contingency. When it happens with the EPA, as in this case, you can't fire the EPA. I think you can sue them, but it's not nearly as easy to sue the government with all its various immunities.

What you'd get is the certifying agency crippling or buying out other certifying agencies and/or creating shells to hide the fact.

Or you'd get what you basically have now, with weakened regulatory agencies -- the producers performing certification duties under the radar, and obscuring the truth.

Libertarians believe that information is most free in their idealized, libertarian society, but actually the opposite is true.

You'd have something very close to what you'd have now, except without so many involuntary interactions.

FnkyTwn:Your argument is silly. Just because Big Business has corrupted the government, doesn't mean that the government is bad. It's important to have some sort of "system", we just need to start executing CEOs that set out to manipulate our government into lying to us.

It's like Tea Party members being elected because they hate big government. They get to Washington DC and then break the government even more, and then go back home and get re-elected because big government doesn't work. It's not 'governments' fault, it's just the morons you keep electing. "Big business" spends a ton of time, effort and money making government look stupid so morons like you can rail against 'big government', instead of being mad at the companies that are actually hurting you.

The only part of this I disagree with is that we should execute CEOs (which seems silly to me). If we're going to execute anyone, and I don't think we should, it should be those in government who were 'hired' by the people to protect them. They're violating the trust we put in them by allowing themselves to be bribed/cowed/influenced by industry.

To have a system *is* better than not having a system. It's just that the one we have - where the power is concentrated at the top in the hands of a small number of people who are, effectively, not liable for their actions - isn't working. I think that's something we can all agree on.

Mr. Right:The problem is not what's in the plastic. It's using the plastic to begin with. Beer in glass bottles, soda in glass bottles (I know you can't find it anymore), milk in glass bottles, ketchup, mustard, pickles, vinegar - everything came in glass bottles and jars.

We were told that plastic was safer because it didn't break and cut your small children to ribbons (a fate worst than losing an eye to a BB gun or running with scissors); it was more convenient because you didn't have to wash and return it, it was lighter so it was easier to carry and cheaper to ship - the benefits of plastic were manifest and abundant and were promoted by industry and government alike.

Now we have chronic oil shortages (the source of plastics) and are warned that we will run out and need to find alternative energy sources. We are also told that plastic is not going to save us - it's going to kill us.

So you're telling me I was lied to. Imagine that.

you left out the Pacific gyre

I guess there's five major oceanic gyres now. Disposable isn't what it used to be.